Types of Carbon Offsetting Projects
Carbon reduction projects are critical in the battle against climate change. These initiatives vary widely, but all share the same goal: to lower the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Broadly speaking, carbon reduction efforts can be divided into two categories: carbon reduction/avoidance and carbon removal projects.
In this lesson we’ll explore both types of carbon projects, highlighting their differences, effectiveness, and their role in achieving global Net Zero goals.
Carbon Reduction vs. Carbon Removal: A High-Level Comparison
At the heart of the global conversation around carbon management are two key approaches: carbon avoidance and carbon removal.
- Carbon reduction/avoidance projects focus on preventing or reducing the amount of new carbon emissions released into the atmosphere. These projects aim to decelerate the growth of greenhouse gases by replacing high-carbon activities with low-carbon alternatives. For example, switching from coal to solar energy is a classic carbon reduction effort.
- Carbon removal projects go a step further by extracting carbon that has already been emitted from the atmosphere. These projects actively reduce the amount of carbon in the air, reversing the damage caused by historical emissions. Carbon removal efforts, such as afforestation (planting trees) or direct air capture technologies, are essential for addressing the lingering effects of past industrial activity.
While both types of projects are important for addressing climate change, carbon removal projects are often considered more effective for long-term climate goals because they remove existing carbon, whereas reduction projects simply slow the rate at which new carbon is added. Because of this, removal projects are required to comply with Net Zero standards like the SBti - however they tend to be more expensive to invest in per tonne of CO2e.
Carbon Reduction Projects
As mentioned earlier, carbon reduction or avoidance projects focus primarily on preventing further emissions. They often revolve around renewable energy or energy efficiency initiatives. Below are some of the most common examples of carbon reduction projects:
Wind Farms
Wind Farms harness the power of wind to generate electricity without carbon emissions. This technology is mature, with costs ranging from £30 to £50 per tonne of CO2e avoided, depending on the location and scale. Wind energy also promotes energy security and job creation.
Pros:
- Zero Carbon Emissions: Wind farms generate electricity without producing greenhouse gases, helping reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
- Renewable and Abundant: Wind is a limitless, renewable energy source, contributing to sustainable and long-term energy solutions.
- Economic Growth: Wind projects create jobs and stimulate local economies, particularly in construction and maintenance.
Cons:
- Intermittency: Wind energy is variable, requiring backup systems or storage solutions to ensure a reliable energy supply.
- High Initial Costs: The upfront investment for setting up wind farms, especially offshore, can be significant.
- Environmental and Visual Impact: Wind turbines can affect landscapes and local wildlife, particularly birds and bats, and are sometimes criticised for their visual impact.
Solar Power Projects
Solar panels convert sunlight into electricity, displacing the need for coal or gas-fired power plants. Solar energy has become increasingly affordable, with prices ranging from £25 to £40 per tonne of CO2e avoided. Solar projects are beneficial in promoting clean energy access and economic development in regions with abundant sunlight.
Pros:
- Zero Carbon Emissions: Solar power generates electricity without releasing greenhouse gases, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
- Renewable and Widely Available: Solar energy is abundant and available in most regions, contributing to sustainable energy generation.
- Low Operating Costs: Once installed, solar panels require minimal maintenance and have low operational costs over their lifetime.
Cons:
- Intermittency: Solar energy is only generated during daylight hours, requiring energy storage or backup systems for continuous power supply.
- High Upfront Costs: Although costs have decreased, the initial investment for installing solar panels can still be significant.
- Land Use and Environmental Impact: Large solar farms can require extensive land, potentially impacting ecosystems and land use for agriculture.
Hydropower
Hydropower projects use flowing water to generate electricity, often in large-scale dams. While this reduces carbon emissions by displacing fossil fuels, large dams can have significant ecological and social consequences, such as displacing communities and disrupting ecosystems. Pricing for hydro projects ranges between £5 and £40 per tonne of CO2e avoided, but their environmental impact remains controversial.
Pros:
- Low Carbon Emissions: Hydropower generates electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, making it a clean energy source.
- Reliable and Consistent: Unlike wind and solar, hydropower provides a steady and consistent energy supply, ideal for meeting base-load electricity demand.
- Long Lifespan and Low Operating Costs: Once constructed, hydropower plants can operate for decades with relatively low maintenance and operational costs.
Cons:
- Environmental Impact: Large-scale hydropower projects can disrupt ecosystems, displace wildlife, and affect water quality and flow in rivers.
- Displacement of Communities: Dams can displace local communities and affect livelihoods by flooding large areas of land.
- High Initial Costs: The construction of large hydropower dams involves significant upfront investment and long development timelines.
Cookstoves
Replacing old, inefficient wood-burning stoves with more efficient models can significantly reduce carbon emissions while improving indoor air quality and reducing deforestation. Cookstove projects can be relatively inexpensive, costing around £10 to £20 per tonne of CO2e avoided. They also have important health and gender equality benefits by reducing exposure to harmful indoor air pollution, which disproportionately affects women and children.
Pros:
- Reduced Carbon Emissions: Efficient cookstoves use less fuel, cutting down carbon emissions from traditional wood or charcoal burning.
- Improved Health: These stoves reduce indoor air pollution, significantly improving health outcomes, particularly for women and children.
- Cost Savings: By using less fuel, households save money and time that would otherwise be spent collecting or purchasing firewood.
Cons:
- Initial Adoption Costs: Even though efficient cookstoves are affordable in the long run, upfront costs can be a barrier for low-income households.
- Limited Reach: Cookstove projects need wide adoption to have a large-scale impact on carbon emissions and often face challenges in distribution and user education.
- Durability and Maintenance: In some cases, stoves may require maintenance or replacement, and without proper training or support, users may revert to traditional methods.
Bioenergy Projects
Using organic waste (such as agricultural residues or food waste) to create energy is another way to avoid emissions. Bioenergy projects range from small community initiatives to large industrial-scale plants. These projects can cost anywhere between £20 and £50 per tonne of CO2e avoided, depending on the complexity of the technology used. They also contribute to waste reduction and create renewable energy.
Pros:
- Carbon Neutrality: Bioenergy uses organic waste or biomass as fuel, which can be considered carbon-neutral since the CO2 released during combustion is offset by the carbon absorbed during the growth of the biomass.
- Waste Reduction: Bioenergy projects convert agricultural, industrial, or municipal waste into energy, reducing landfill waste and methane emissions.
- Energy Security: Bioenergy provides a renewable and continuous energy source, helping reduce dependence on fossil fuels and improving local energy security.
Cons:
- Land and Resource Use: Growing biomass for energy can compete with food production and lead to land-use changes, impacting food security and biodiversity.
- Emissions from Combustion: While bioenergy is generally considered carbon-neutral, the combustion process can still release other pollutants, such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, affecting air quality.
- High Initial Investment: Setting up bioenergy plants, especially large-scale ones, requires significant upfront costs, including infrastructure for biomass collection and processing.
Carbon Removal Projects: Nature-based
Carbon removal projects focus on pulling existing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. These are generally considered more effective for meeting long-term climate goals like Net Zero because they address the carbon already contributing to global warming.
Carbon removal projects can generally be divided into nature-based solutions and emerging technologies. Nature-based solutions rely on natural processes to sequester carbon, offering a range of environmental and social benefits alongside their ability to remove carbon. Below are some examples (we'll cover emerging technologies later).
Afforestation and Reforestation
These projects involve planting trees to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. As most of us know, trees naturally capture and store carbon in their biomass as they grow. Afforestation (planting in areas with no previous tree cover) and reforestation (replanting in deforested areas) can cost between £5 and £30 per tonne of CO2e removed. In addition to carbon capture, these projects can restore biodiversity, combat desertification, and create sustainable jobs in rural areas.
Pros:
- Carbon Sequestration: Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in their biomass, making afforestation and reforestation effective natural carbon removal methods.
- Biodiversity Restoration: These projects help restore ecosystems and habitats, supporting wildlife and increasing biodiversity in degraded or deforested areas.
- Social and Economic Benefits: Afforestation and reforestation can create jobs in rural areas, support sustainable forestry, and improve community resilience through ecosystem restoration.
Cons:
- Long Timeframe for Impact: Trees take time to grow and reach their full carbon sequestration potential, meaning the climate benefits can take years or decades to realise.
- Land Use Conflicts: Large-scale tree planting may compete with agricultural land or displace local communities, leading to potential conflicts over land use.
- Monoculture Risks: Some afforestation projects focus on planting a single species, which can reduce biodiversity and make forests more vulnerable to disease, pests, and climate changes.
Regenerative Agriculture
This farming approach improves soil health and increases the amount of carbon stored in the soil. By using cover crops, no-till farming, and crop rotations, regenerative agriculture enhances soil’s ability to sequester carbon. Prices range from £10 to £50 per tonne of CO2e removed, depending on the scale. In addition to carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture can boost food security, improve water retention, and increase biodiversity.
Pros:
- Carbon Sequestration: Regenerative agriculture improves soil health, increasing its ability to store carbon, making it a valuable tool for long-term carbon removal.
- Improved Soil Health and Biodiversity: Practices such as crop rotation, cover cropping, and reduced tilling enhance soil fertility, improve water retention, and promote biodiversity in farming systems.
- Sustainable Food Production: By focusing on ecosystem health, regenerative agriculture can increase crop yields and resilience to climate change, supporting long-term food security.
Cons:
- Slow Transition: Transitioning to regenerative agriculture requires time and effort, as farmers need to adopt new practices and techniques, which may slow immediate carbon benefits.
- Initial Costs: Implementing regenerative practices can involve initial costs for new equipment, training, and adapting farming methods, which may deter some farmers.
- Variability in Carbon Capture: The effectiveness of carbon sequestration varies depending on soil type, climate, and the specific practices used, meaning results may not be consistent across all regions.
Blue Carbon (Seagrass, Mangroves, and Seaweed)
Coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass meadows, and seaweed beds are powerful carbon sinks. They can capture and store carbon at a faster rate than terrestrial forests. Blue carbon projects are still developing but are estimated to cost between £15 and £40 per tonne of CO2e removed. They also protect coastal communities from storm surges and promote marine biodiversity.
Pros:
- High Carbon Sequestration: Coastal ecosystems like seagrass meadows, mangroves, and seaweed beds capture and store carbon at much faster rates than terrestrial forests, making them highly effective carbon sinks.
- Ecosystem Protection: These blue carbon habitats protect coastal areas by reducing erosion, buffering storm surges, and maintaining biodiversity, supporting fisheries and marine life.
- Restoration Potential: Blue carbon projects help restore degraded coastal ecosystems, which boosts local economies through sustainable fishing and tourism while contributing to climate mitigation.
Cons:
- Vulnerability to Climate Change: Blue carbon ecosystems are vulnerable to rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and other climate-related impacts, which may reduce their long-term effectiveness.
- Geographical Limitation: These ecosystems are limited to coastal areas, meaning they are not applicable everywhere and must be carefully managed to avoid degradation.
- High Restoration Costs: Restoring coastal habitats like mangroves and seagrass meadows can be complex and costly, often requiring ongoing maintenance and protection to ensure long-term success.
Emerging Technologies for Carbon Removal
Just like in any industry emerging technologies are pushing the boundaries of carbon removal, but many are still in the early stages of deployment and tend to be expensive. Here are some examples of emerging technologies that could be the future of carbon removal:
Biochar
Biochar is a stable form of carbon created by heating organic material in the absence of oxygen. When applied to soils, it not only sequesters carbon but also enhances soil fertility. Biochar projects typically cost between £50 and £100 per tonne of CO2e removed. They offer additional benefits, such as improving soil health and increasing agricultural productivity.
Pros:
- Carbon Sequestration: Biochar is a stable form of carbon that can be stored in soils for hundreds or even thousands of years, making it an effective method for long-term carbon removal.
- Improved Soil Health: When added to soil, biochar enhances soil fertility, improves water retention, and boosts agricultural productivity, benefiting crop yields and reducing the need for chemical fertilisers.
- Waste Utilisation: Biochar is produced from organic waste materials, such as agricultural residues, turning waste into a valuable resource while reducing methane emissions from decomposition.
Cons:
- High Production Costs: The technology and infrastructure required to produce biochar on a large scale can be expensive, limiting its widespread adoption.
- Variability in Impact: The effectiveness of biochar in sequestering carbon and improving soil health can vary based on soil type, climate, and the type of biomass used, making outcomes unpredictable in some cases.
- Energy-Intensive Production: Biochar production requires significant energy inputs, particularly when scaled up, which can offset some of the carbon savings if not powered by renewable energy.
Enhanced Rock Weathering
This technique involves spreading finely ground silicate rocks on soils, where they chemically react with CO2 in the atmosphere, turning it into stable carbonates. Enhanced rock weathering is an innovative and promising method, with costs ranging from £40 to £100 per tonne of CO2e removed. This method could be combined with agricultural practices to improve soil health while capturing carbon.
Pros:
- Carbon Sequestration: Enhanced rock weathering accelerates the natural process of silicate rocks reacting with atmospheric CO2, turning it into stable carbonates that store carbon for millennia, making it a long-term carbon removal solution.
- Soil Health Improvement: The minerals released during the weathering process can improve soil fertility, supporting agricultural productivity and reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers.
- Scalable Solution: Enhanced rock weathering can be applied over large areas of agricultural land, making it a potentially scalable solution for carbon capture across various regions.
Cons:
- High Costs and Energy Use: Crushing and spreading large amounts of rock require significant energy and resources, making the process costly and potentially energy-intensive, especially if not powered by renewables.
- Uncertain Efficiency: The rate of carbon capture can vary depending on factors like climate, soil type, and the specific minerals used, leading to unpredictable results in different environments.
- Logistical Challenges: The process involves transporting and distributing vast amounts of finely ground rock over large areas, posing logistical and environmental challenges in terms of land use and potential disruption to ecosystems.
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
One of the most technologically advanced methods, DAC involves machines that pull CO2 directly from the air. The captured carbon is then stored underground or used in various industrial processes. DAC is extremely expensive, currently ranging from £300 to £600 per tonne of CO2e removed. Despite its cost, DAC is one of the most scalable solutions in theory and could play a critical role in future carbon removal efforts.
Pros:
- Effective Carbon Removal: DAC directly captures CO2 from the atmosphere, offering a highly targeted solution for removing existing emissions, which is crucial for reaching Net Zero and reversing historical emissions.
- Location Flexibility: DAC plants can be built almost anywhere, unlike other carbon removal methods that rely on specific ecosystems or land types.
- Permanent Storage: Once captured, CO2 can be stored underground or used in long-term industrial applications, ensuring the carbon is permanently removed from the atmosphere.
Cons:
- High Costs: DAC is one of the most expensive carbon removal technologies, with current costs ranging from £300 to £600 per tonne of CO2 removed, making it less accessible for large-scale deployment.
- Energy-Intensive: The process requires significant energy to operate, potentially reducing its net carbon benefit unless powered by renewable energy sources.
- Limited Scalability (at present): Although highly promising, the technology is still in its early stages, and scaling up to the level needed to impact global emissions will take time and require major infrastructure investments.
Wider ESG Benefits of Climate Action
Carbon reduction and removal projects both tend to have a broader impact beyond their climate benefits. They can contribute to economic growth, social development, and environmental restoration.
- Economic Growth: Renewable energy projects like solar, wind, and bioenergy create new industries, generate jobs, and promote economic resilience. Nature-based solutions such as afforestation also create sustainable livelihoods, especially in rural areas.
- Gender Equality: In many developing countries, energy efficiency projects like improved cookstoves can directly improve the lives of women, who often bear the burden of gathering fuel and suffer from indoor air pollution.
- Restoration of Nature: Projects like afforestation, regenerative agriculture, and blue carbon solutions not only capture carbon but also restore ecosystems, protect biodiversity, and improve soil and water health.
Summary
In the fight against climate change, both carbon reduction and carbon removal projects have important roles to play. Reduction projects help slow the pace of new emissions, offering a cost-effective way to start lowering our carbon footprint today.
However, to meet the ambitious Net Zero goals set by international agreements, carbon removal projects that sequester existing CO2 from the atmosphere will be essential. While more expensive, these projects hold the key to reversing centuries of emissions and putting the world on a path to long-term sustainability.
Alongside their climate benefits, both types of projects can also drive economic, social, and environmental improvements, making them powerful tools in achieving broader ESG goals.
Syllabus
Climate change: the basics
Carbon footprinting
Tackling emissions
The road to Net Zero
What is carbon offsetting?
Climate comms
Chat to an expert
Measure a full-scope footprint, reduce emissions, and share your Net Zero strategy.